On 9/15/07, kendear <summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:
> given the ease of using Ruby, I wonder whether we will have rand(m, n) in
> the future...
>
> right now, we need to use rand(range) + start
>
> and it can cause a bug that can otherwise be avoided if we have rand(m, n)
> for the clarity.

Why not instead suggest rand(m..n)? That would, I think, be more
readable than rand(m, n).

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
* austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
* austin@zieglers.ca

On 9/15/07, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/15/07, kendear <summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:
> > given the ease of using Ruby, I wonder whether we will have rand(m, n) in
> > the future...
> >
> > right now, we need to use rand(range) + start
> >
> > and it can cause a bug that can otherwise be avoided if we have rand(m, n)
> > for the clarity.
>
> Why not instead suggest rand(m..n)? That would, I think, be more
> readable than rand(m, n).

But would that draw discrete or continuous random numbers?

Hadley

On 15.09.2007 17:39, hadley wickham wrote:
> On 9/15/07, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/15/07, kendear <summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> given the ease of using Ruby, I wonder whether we will have rand(m, n) in
>>> the future...
>>>
>>> right now, we need to use rand(range) + start
>>>
>>> and it can cause a bug that can otherwise be avoided if we have rand(m, n)
>>> for the clarity.
>> Why not instead suggest rand(m..n)? That would, I think, be more
>> readable than rand(m, n).
>
> But would that draw discrete or continuous random numbers?

That question actually applies to both variants. :-)

The rule could probably be, if at least one of the two numbers is non
int (i.e. float) then a "continuous" range is used. Alternatively we
can define another function that does this ("frand" or "randf").

Btw, currently if you use a float as single parameter you still get
integers back as far as I can see.

Kind regards

robert